WPC # VUNa % 0(UPw@- 4m  0l 0D @ 0JH 0T 0^ 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d%U>U6B)DC& AMiU* D3 B0 0@@Lv~vJ AOl 0D2 D/v BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular iDjkDlmnDoDpqӀ}^!3|x}((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G<  9p`(Arial++++'dxd d  !#d#$  ))   YYY FILED)X December23,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.)AppellateCourtClerk ("$     B !#d#$   $       %% Rileyv.Rollo ,913S.W.2d382(Mo.App.W.D.1996); Stewartv.Rich ,664So.2d1145(Fla.App.4Dist.1995).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . $  P %7EXXdd7\RA'\  ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜R(,'A1-j|kX`  `@RߛVIRGINIARUTHMATHELY,  )C/ANO.03A019607CV00237      )  PlaintiffAppellee, )      )      )      )v.      )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE      )HAMILTONCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT      )      )      )      )JOHNNYG.MATHELY,   )      )HONORABLEWILLIAML.BROWN,  DefendantAppellant.)JUDGEAttorneyforAppellant   AttorneyforAppelleeALANR.BEARD     CHARLESD.PATYChattanooga,Tennessee   Paty,Rymer&Ulin,P.C.       Chattanooga,Tennessee@  OPINION%%XԛAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.  Thisisapostdivorceproceeding.VirginiaRuthϜMathelyfiledacomplaintagainstherformerhusband,JohnnyG.ϜMathely,seekingamodificationofthethenexistingorderobligatinghimtopayalimonyinfuturoof$100perweek.Followingahearing,thecourtmodifieditsorderbyincreasingthealimonypaymentto$125perweek,beginningMay24,1996,andendingDecember31,1997.Thecourtsmodificationorderprovidesthatbeginningin1998,Mr.MathelysspousalsupportobligationϜwillrevertto$100perweek.Husbandappealed,arguingthatthetrialcourterredinawardingatemporaryincreaseinalimonypredicatedonmedicalbillsincurredbyMs.Mathelysincetheentryofthepreviousorderforalimony.Weaffirm.  A courtmaydecreeanincreaseordecreaseofsuchallowance[ofspousalsupport]onlyuponashowingofasubstantialandmaterialchangeofcircumstances.T.C.A.365101(a)(1).Therequirementofasubstantialandmaterialchangeofcircumstancessincethepreviousorderisconsistentwiththelegalprinciplethatacourtdecreeisresjudicataastothefactsexistingatthetimeoftheearlierdecree. Hicksv.Hicks ,176S.W.2d371,37475(Tenn.App.1943).  In Elliotv.Elliot ,825S.W.2d87(Tenn.App.1991),weaddressedtheprinciplesapplicabletoapetitiontomodifyanalimonyaward: 8 Thepartyseekingreliefonthegroundsofchangedcircumstanceshastheburdenofprovingthechangedcircumstancesjustifyinganincreaseordecreaseintheamountofthealimonyaward.(citationomitted.)Thechangeincircumstancesmustbeshowntohaveoccurredaftertheentryofthedivorcedecree,andmustnothavebeenforeseeableatthetimethedecreewasenteredinto.Ϝ(citationomitted.)ChangesincircumstancesarenotmaterialifsuchchangeswereinthecontemplationofthepartiesatthetimetheyenteredintotheSupportandAlimonyAgreement.(citationomitted.)Id.at90.  Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtstatedthatitwasincreasingthealimonyaward primarilybecauseoftheunforeseenmedicalexpenses[Ms.Mathelyhad]incurred.Thisfindingwasbasedonhertestimonythatin1995shehadundergoneemergencysurgerybecauseher colonandintestinesruptured.Apparently,thesurgeryalsoinvolvedhergallbladder.Asaresultofthesurgery,sheincurred$2,000inmedicalbillswhichwerenotpaidbyinsurance.Accordingtoher,shehad whittledthatdownsome,butstillowedasubstantialamountatthetimeofthehearing.  Mr.Mathelyarguesthatheshouldnotbeburdenedwithanincreaseinalimonytopaytheseexpensesbecause,heclaims,hisincomeisbasicallythesameasitwasatthetimeofthepartiesdivorcewhenthealimonywasfirstsetat$100;andbecausehisformerwifehasnotattemptedtopursueemploymentwithmorehoursand/oragreaterhourlyrate.  Inthelastcourtorderenteredpriortothefilingofthepetitiontomodify,thecourttemporarilyreducedMr.Mathelysalimonyobligationfrom$100to$15perweekbecauseheϜwasunemployed.ThatorderofJuly13,1995,providedthathisalimonywouldgobackto$100perweekwhenhegotajob.Hewasemployedandpaying$100perweekwhenthecurrentpetitiontomodifywasheard.  ItisclearthatMs.Mathelysemergencysurgeryresultingin$2,000inunreimbursedmedicalbillswasnotaneventanticipatedbythepartiesatthetimeofthedivorceorwhenanyofthesubsequentorderswereentered.Giventheeconomiccircumstancesoftheseparties,webelieveitisclearthat$2,000inunreimbursedmedicalbillsjustifiesafindingofamaterialandsubstantialchangeofcircumstances.  Aquestionofalimony,bothinitsoriginalawardandonamodificationpetition,addressesitselftothediscretionofthetrialcourt. Marminov.Marmino ,238S.W.2d105,107(Tenn.App.1950); Cranfordv.Cranford ,772S.W.2d48,50(Tenn.App.1989).Thatdiscretionwillnotbedisturbedonappealunlessithasbeenabused. Marmino ,238S.W.2dat107.Onapetitiontomodify,thecourtshouldconsiderthefactorssetforthatT.C.A.365101(d)(1)(A)(L). Cranford ,772S.W.2dat50.  Theproofdemonstratestheplaintiffsneed.ItalsoϜshowsthatherformerhusbandsanticipatedincomeexceedshisprojectedexpensesby$533amonth.Needandabilitytopayaretwoofthemostimportantfactorsforthetrialcourtsconsiderationinanyalimonydetermination. Lancasterv.Lancaster ,671S.W.2d501,503(Tenn.App.1984); Barkerv.Barker ,671S.W.2d843,847(Tenn.App.1984).  Citingcasesfromotherjurisdictions .   ,theappellantarguesthatamodificationpetitionshouldnotbepredicatedonatemporarychange.Ourresponseisthreefold.First,counselhasnotcitedanyTennesseeauthorityforapermanent/temporaryϜdichotomyasitpertainstothequestionofachangeofcircumstancesinanalimonymodificationsetting.Furthermore,weareunawareofanyTennesseeauthorityfindingsuchadistinctionsignificantasanabsolutebartoanincreaseinalimony.Second,evenifweweretoadoptsuchadistinction,whichwedeclinetodo,itisclearthatherewearedealingwithapermanentchange,inthesensethatthesebillshavebeenabsolutelyandpermanentlyincurred.Theydonotconstituteatemporaryconditionthatisimmediatelygoingaway.Thecreditorsexpecttobepaid.Third,onatleasttwooccasionsinthepast,thetrialcourtreducedMr.Mathelysalimonyobligationbecausehewas temporarilyunemployedaconditionthatwasgoingtochange,butwhichwascertainlypermanentwhileitexisted.WefindnomeritinMr.Mathelystemporaryversuspermanentargumentinthiscase.  ApplyingourRule13(d),T.R.A.P.standardofreviewinthiscase,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindings.Certainly,wefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthemodificationdecreedbythetrialcourt.  Theappelleehasmovedforanawardofcounselfeesinconnectionwiththisappeal.Wefindthatsuchanawardisappropriate.See Cranford ,772S.W.2dat52.Thiscasewillberemandedtothetrialcourttosetthefeestowhichtheappelleeisentitledwithreferencetothisappeal.See Folkv.Folk ,357S.W.2d828(Tenn.1962).  Thetrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforfurtherproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellantandhissurety.      ________________________________      CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̜CONCUR:_________________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J._________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.